Heard Shri A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Govind Saran appears for the respon­dents. 2. The petitioner's father was employed in North Central Railway. On his death the petitioner's mother was employed on com­passionate grounds. She also died on 4.9.2006, on which the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 28.12.2006. The application was rejected by the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway on 30.11.2007. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated 22.8.2008 in Original Application No. 838 of 2008 directed the respon­dents to reconsider the application. The Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway again rejected the application on 19.11.2008, on the ground that on her death the deceased employee-has left behind 3 sons and 3 daughters. All the children were adults and were married. The applicant was 34 years old and had no responsibility to look after the family. It was further found that more than 2 years have passed since the deceased em­ployee has died and thus the application did not have merit to consider the appointment on compassionate ground. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12th February, 2009 in Original Application No.111 of 2009, in which the Tribunal has found that the application was considered and the reasons were given in the order. The ap­plicant has no legal and enforceable right to claim compassionate appointment as a mat­ter of right and that in rejecting his case the competent authority has taken into account each and every ground raised in the repre­sentation. 5. We have considered the submissions, and do not find any good ground to interfere. The petitioner's mother was beneficiary of compassionate appointment. She died leav­ing six children. All of them are adults, mar­ried and are settled. The submission that the petitioner was only 32 years old at the time of her death and was unemployed, do not af­fect the grounds in which the petitioner's ap­plication was considered and rejected. The compassionate appointment is not by way of hereditary right to be given to dependents after the death of their parents successively and after a long period of time, when they have all attained the age of majority and rather settled in life. The compassionate appointment is not by way of hereditary right to be given to dependents after the death of their parents successively and after a long period of time, when they have all attained the age of majority and rather settled in life. In SAIL v. Madhusudan Das, (2008) 15 SCC 560 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1153 ); Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. v. Anil Badykar, (2009) 13 SCC 112 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2534 ); and Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi, (2009) 7 SCC 205 : (2009 (6) ALJ 451), the Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right to be claimed after inordinate delay. The claim should be decided in accordance with the statutory Rules, as an exception to Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution with the object only to tide over immediate financial crisis, in case the deceased employee has left the family in penury. These tests are satisfied in this case. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.